The Good, The Bad And The Ugly was 12 minutes longer than Django Unchained

Gator -> (17/12/2012 10:33:03 PM)

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly was 12 minutes longer than Django Unchained

AxlReznor -> RE: (18/12/2012 10:12:15 AM)

This is true, but it needed to be that length. The point the reviewer is making is that Django Unchained doesn't need to be as long as it is.

I'm looking forward to watching it. Will probably be my first movie of 2013.

Cool Breeze -> Tarantino Unedited.. (18/12/2012 2:55:22 PM)

Sounds like a 3 star movie at most.Like Inglorious Basterds, a film that suffers from Tarantinos inability to reign himself in and edit his films properly.Never rated Foxx that much either.Very average actor.

Oh well at least he didnt feel the need to extend it into three films.

A director who's successful enough to get final cut essentially has no one to tell him no. No governing mechanism in place to give pause for thought or lend an alternative perspective. Most of the great films were made with a strong producer breathing down the director's neck. Great art is usually made under duress of some kind.

jimizero1 -> I SAW IT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO (18/12/2012 11:54:25 PM)

at a screening in London with QT present, where he took questions afterwards. If you are a fan of his previous films, I can assure you, you will enjoy every minute of it but if you're not, then there's nothing in it that will sway you otherwise ( detractors will certainly call it self-indulgent, and the middle section is certainly flabby) . It may not be his best, but I would argue that it is his most purely entertaining. And Foxx was fine in it.

I always approach each new Tarantino film with an open mind, and usually end up frustrated because I still "don't get it". Maybe I never will but I always try. In a Family Guy episode, the cast knowingly slag off Seth McFarlane, and one line is "You watched TV in the 80s, we get it". You could say something similar about QT: "You spent your youth overdosing on hopelessly obscure exploitation films and have spent your entire career homaging them, we get it".

Anyway, haven't seen Django Unchained yet but have to pedantically correct something in Empire's review. The sidebar states Tarantino's claim that Jamie Foxx is the first man to ride his own horse on screen since Roy Rogers. That's not true, for, of all people, William Shatner rode his own horse in Star Trek Generations. According to his book 'Star Trek Movie Memories', the horse was amusingly named Great Belles Of Fire.

At the one hour mark I thought "this is the best western I've ever seen and Tarantino's finest work." After ninety minutes I thought "this is still great but where is it all going." After two hours I thought "ok, so this should have ended here." The last 30-45 minutes was, at best, embarrassing and seemed to be from a different film maker than the man who'd shot the first half of the movie. Unfortunately Tarantino's inability to edit out any of his (in his opinion) witty conversations and elongated set-pieces spoils this movie.

The one saving grace is that every scene with Christopher Waltz is incredible.

burtbondy -> His Best Since Jackie Brown (8/1/2013 12:16:34 PM)

Being a massive QT fan in the 90's Ive waited 17 years for him to deliver this film. The scene where Django picks up the whip wearing a little boys oufit had me in tears. Briliant movie.

owenyunfat -> RE: His Best Since Jackie Brown (10/1/2013 3:01:41 PM)

I felt the film was too long and why Tarantino insists on putting himself in his films I will never know (From Duck Til Dawn was fine), he sounds like the odd-ball employee in Office Space.

The film may well divide audiences, but the soundtrack is the best I have heard from a film or show (sons of anarchy runs it close) for sometime, every song fits it perfectly and great for driving to!

Mr Grizzly -> Very good but no masterpiece. (11/1/2013 1:16:24 PM)

Doesn't have the stand out scenes of Basterds but is a better whole. Violent, funny and brilliant performances - Jackson's best performance in years.

CORLEONE -> RE: Very good but no masterpiece. (12/1/2013 4:37:40 PM)

I enjoyed it. 3.5 stars for me. Is overly long and a lot of scenes where people are doing nothing imparticular with the soundtrack booming in the background, but it is enjoyable in parts. Waltz is great again, as is DiCaprio when he eventually turns up. The Ku Klux Klan scene was very funny. Plenty of violence, some of it very gruesome. Samuel L Jackson's character was good to watch too. So, it's entertaining, but don't be expecting any strong message or lessons about slavery in it, wait for Lincoln for that.

Goodfella -> RE: Very good but no masterpiece. (12/1/2013 6:34:01 PM)

I don't really care what any reviews say, I thought it was absolutely brilliant and have reccomended it to everyone I know! Granted as a cliche as it may be but I do love all of Tarantino's work and I adore the way, along with Inglorious Basterds, he deliciously twists and abuses historic genres of cinema. It should be insulting, unacceptable and offensive (and some probably think it is!) but his wicked humour, brutal action and heart-capturing characters right any wrongs. My mum is a hard cinema viewer to please (she's not a fan of bad language and/or violence, she's not anti-BBFC or anything she's just a bit old-school) and she loved IB and I've shown her a few clips of this and she's already a fan because I think she accepts it for what it is.

At the one hour mark I thought "this is the best western I've ever seen and Tarantino's finest work." After ninety minutes I thought "this is still great but where is it all going." After two hours I thought "ok, so this should have ended here." The last 30-45 minutes was, at best, embarrassing and seemed to be from a different film maker than the man who'd shot the first half of the movie. Unfortunately Tarantino's inability to edit out any of his (in his opinion) witty conversations and elongated set-pieces spoils this movie.

The one saving grace is that every scene with Christopher Waltz is incredible.

Agree 100 % he was great sadly the film was awful. Over long and so boring.

At the one hour mark I thought "this is the best western I've ever seen and Tarantino's finest work." After ninety minutes I thought "this is still great but where is it all going." After two hours I thought "ok, so this should have ended here." The last 30-45 minutes was, at best, embarrassing and seemed to be from a different film maker than the man who'd shot the first half of the movie. Unfortunately Tarantino's inability to edit out any of his (in his opinion) witty conversations and elongated set-pieces spoils this movie.

The one saving grace is that every scene with Christopher Waltz is incredible.

Agree 100 % he was great sadly the film was awful. Over long and so boring.

You could not be more wrong. The issue was with you, not the film, of that you can be sure.

At the one hour mark I thought "this is the best western I've ever seen and Tarantino's finest work." After ninety minutes I thought "this is still great but where is it all going." After two hours I thought "ok, so this should have ended here." The last 30-45 minutes was, at best, embarrassing and seemed to be from a different film maker than the man who'd shot the first half of the movie. Unfortunately Tarantino's inability to edit out any of his (in his opinion) witty conversations and elongated set-pieces spoils this movie.

The one saving grace is that every scene with Christopher Waltz is incredible.

Agree 100 % he was great sadly the film was awful. Over long and so boring.

You could not be more wrong. The issue was with you, not the film, of that you can be sure.

Nice.

Hillsman -> RE: (14/1/2013 12:36:27 PM)

"The Good, The Bad And The Ugly was 12 minutes longer than Django Unchained"

Personally I don't like Tarantino films (in fairness I've only seen a couple)

BenTramer -> (14/1/2013 5:13:06 PM)

Tarantino has never become a disciplined writer or director. He's too in love with his characters and his scenes to dare edit or cut anything. It's a self-indulgence he's never grown out of. The problem comes when an audience isn't so in love with what he's written or shot and become bored with his bloated, wordy movies. Such a shame.

hi charlie -> spoilers (14/1/2013 6:45:58 PM)

SPOILER ALERT!!

I acftually found the film too short and most of the characters so engrossing that a wanted more of them, apparently the film was initially much longer I'd like to see that version, the only weakness I found with the film was that it seemed to meandre a bit after Calvin Candie is shot

ongbakdan -> RE: (15/1/2013 12:25:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hi charlie

I acftually found the film too short and most of the characters so engrossing that a wanted more of them, apparently the film was initially much longer I'd like to see that version, the only weakness I found with the film was that it seemed to meandre a bit after Calvin Candie is shot

I think if I was you I'd put a spoiler warning on your comment. I dont think people will take it as a given as to what happens in the flick.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I found it funny, visually impressive and the violence was pretty brutal but some of it in a more OTT way that it wasnt particularly offensive. But either way its no more so than other QT films. Dicaprio was awesome and SL Jackson also superb. Cant wait to see it again. 4 Stars.

Rgirvan44 -> RE: RE: (15/1/2013 10:22:56 PM)

So was there some preview screenings on this week? How have you all seen it?

adambatman82 -> RE: Tarantino Unedited.. (15/1/2013 11:32:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

Sounds like a 3 star movie at most.Like Inglorious Basterds, a film that suffers from Tarantinos inability to reign himself in and edit his films properly.Never rated Foxx that much either.Very average actor.

Oh well at least he didnt feel the need to extend it into three films.

Fantastically obtuse post.

paulyboy -> RE: RE: (16/1/2013 9:33:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

So was there some preview screenings on this week? How have you all seen it?

If I had to guess...

Oscar season + the internet = You know what.

**Cough** DVD Screener **Cough**

bnicholson50 -> Jamie Foxx Criticism (16/1/2013 5:49:30 PM)

Agree with Dan Jolins criticism of the Foxx casting. I thought the part should have gone to Michael Jai White (but he probably wasnt a big enough name for the Distributors). Unfortunate, given Tarantinos brilliant record at perfect casting.

mclane1 -> good fun (16/1/2013 6:22:22 PM)

really liked this, diddnt actually seem that long (and i hate overlong films) watched the majority with a smile on my face at the brilliant dialogue and wit. Decaprio is a blast. top movie all round. also great to see cameos from forgotten actors- don johnson, the guy from dukes of hazard- even Jonah hill shows up, which was a bit left field but great all the same.

simjamlmx -> Great. but. (17/1/2013 11:17:30 AM)

As far as i can tell tarantino has never claimed to be anything other than a film maker who makes films that he would like to see himself. He's had alot of critics and other people project expectations onto him because of his earlier career movies. I'm not a fan boy, i hated the one with kurt russell the name of the movie escapes me right now, it was weak, I enjoyed kill bill 1-2 and basterds was brilliant in parts. i like django alot because i love westerns, and was enjoying spotting cy tollivers place, and swearengens gem salloon in certain scenes in django. it's an enjoyable film, i felt it could be 20 minutes shorter at the most. didn't really feel it was TOO long. i still give it five stars though

spamandham -> RE: Django Unchained (17/1/2013 10:06:44 PM)

About 45mins too long and not that great by tarantinos old standards. foxx is as crap as ever and everyone else hams it up. Beg for your editor to come back quentin.